Undertaking Given To Court Has Same Force As An Order & Its Breach Would Amount To Contempt: Apex Court

The Supreme Court emphasized the binding nature of undertakings provided by parties or their legal representatives during legal proceedings.

The Court underscored that an undertaking, whether made explicitly in writing or orally and recorded in the court order, holds the same force as a judicial order. Breaching such an undertaking is considered equivalent to contempt of court, similar to violating an injunction order.

"An undertaking given to the Court has the same force as an order of the Court and breach thereof would amount to contempt in the same manner as a breach of an injunction," the Bench ruled.

The Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah made the observation while it discharged the contempt notices issued to Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Managing Director (MD) Acharya Balakrishna in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case.

The Court stated that an undertaking can be presented to the Court through various means; it may be filed as an application or an affidavit that clearly articulates the undertaking. Alternatively, an express oral undertaking given during court proceedings, if incorporated into the Court’s order, carries the same weight.

Additionally, the Court said that an advocate may provide an undertaking on behalf of their client, and once duly given, it holds the same binding effect as if the client had provided it themselves.

The Court clarified that whether a statement by a party or its counsel constitutes an undertaking depends on the specific words used and the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. Even if the term "undertaking" is not explicitly mentioned, if the Court is convinced that a firm commitment was made, the party will be held accountable to that undertaking. Ignorance or misunderstanding of the commitment does not absolve the party from responsibility.

"Whether a statement made by a party or its counsel could amount to an undertaking, would depend on the words used in the statement made and the facts and circumstances of a case. When an undertaking is given before the Court for any purpose, be it for payment of money or for vacating a property or for doing an act or for refraining from doing a particular act and compliances are not made, contempt proceedings can be drawn up. The bottom-line is that if a party or the advocate acts in such a manner so as to convey to the Court a firm conviction that an undertaking is being given regardless of the fact that the word “undertaking” has not been specifically mentioned, that party will be bound down and it will be no answer that he did not think that he was giving it or that he was misunderstood" the Court said.

Cause Title: In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Limited, through its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, Baba Ramdev [SMC (C) No. 4/2024]